The other day I did a post on an argument my wife and I had about Chomsky that turned on the question of whether Chomsky bit his tongue on Israel till his parents died. Reader Marla Erlien says the premise of the argument is wrong:
Just to let you know–Chomsky did speak out against Israel
from at least 1973–he published a book in, I think, 1974 which
expressed some sympathy for a binational state, although he stood by a
practical implementation of two states. Also he was the kind of Zionist
that did not support a nation state, so he was never really a supporter
of a "Jewish State." Since his father didn't die until 1977, the
information you got was quite wrong. Also, his mother came from a
family of left-wing radicals which profoundly influenced Chomsky. You
can google the book and there are are other discussions of his youth on
line, but he has talked about his during lectures. He's very clear
there were very different kinds of Zionism and opposed the one that
won–the creation of a state. This web page has Chomsky's writings in
the NY Review of Books–very interesting.
from at least 1973–he published a book in, I think, 1974 which
expressed some sympathy for a binational state, although he stood by a
practical implementation of two states. Also he was the kind of Zionist
that did not support a nation state, so he was never really a supporter
of a "Jewish State." Since his father didn't die until 1977, the
information you got was quite wrong. Also, his mother came from a
family of left-wing radicals which profoundly influenced Chomsky. You
can google the book and there are are other discussions of his youth on
line, but he has talked about his during lectures. He's very clear
there were very different kinds of Zionism and opposed the one that
won–the creation of a state. This web page has Chomsky's writings in
the NY Review of Books–very interesting.
different kinds of zionists? different kinds of thieves? (ok. thief of land. thief of water. thief of air. thief of personal property.etc) a zionist is a zionist. none of the one have a right to palestine.
chompsky is a thief at heart. a supporter, albeit at times a critical supporter, of thieves. and a deceiver.
I am very critical of Chomsky on his take on Palestine. He is utterly unconvincing. I remember sitting through one of his guest talks in Canada, and hearing him justify zionist theft (of 1948 lands) and the violation of the right of refugees to return to their lands, by saying it wasn't within the boundaries of reason to expect, let alone demand, that these lands come under the sovereignty of the indigenous people from whom it was stolen. Gee. Go tell that to the black South Africans suffering under, and dispossessed by, racist colonial rule? As usual, different standards when it comes to South Africa (and the rest of the world, actually) on the one hand, and Israel on the other hand. Yes, even Chomsky does it.
Great post, ABFH. Chomsky's self-narrative on his upbringing and his experience with "labor Zionism" in the early days, pre-Israel, is thoroughly unconvincing to me as well.
I remember reading what he wrote about the early days of "Israel".
He said he spent a short time there, and although he loved the kibbutz he worked on, he felt a certain racism taking hold back then – the Palestinians were looked at as lesser people, even by the "progressive" labor Zionists of which he was a part.
He takes pains to say that he (and evidently, according to him, the other "labor Zionists" as well) was always against the formation of a strictly Jewish state. Yet, he says that once the state was established (which he evidently didn't do much to oppose either), it should be recognized as any other, according to international law. And then he's done with it. That's it.
This always struck me as a rather odd stance to take for a self-declared "anarchist" who speaks eloquently against nation states and in favor of indigenous rights.
Chomsky, whether intentionally or unwittingly, has a severe blind spot for Israel. He makes an exception of it all the time. It's much more subtle than the obvious Israeli-centric mindset we're used to from mainstream Zionists, but it's there.